Mikey wrote:That type of mod would make more sense, though it would be kind of redundant. The trigger control group on most of these has three settings (four, if you count the mechanical safety) - single-shot, burst-fire, and full-auto. Saying that the weapon is limited to semi-auto, though, is synonymous with saying that it's limited to single-shot. In general, SMG's are seeing an increasingly small role in LE; in the U.S., most S.W.A.T. units employ the M-16/AR-15 or an equivalent .223 assault rifle to fulfill the autofire role, with 18"-bbl. 12-gauge shotguns and bolt-action rifles making up the bulk of the longarms, and a small number of local agencies use a PDW like the FN P90. The intermediate step - the SMG - increases rate of fire over a sidearm but doesn't increase ballistic performance.

So the mod I was suggesting would be trivial to implement. It would also add an element of safety to the weapon by removing accidental full auto activation.

IanKennedy wrote:So the mod I was suggesting would be trivial to implement. It would also add an element of safety to the weapon by removing accidental full auto activation.

I don't ever recall of hearing of issues with accidental activation of the trigger group, but OK. I don't know how difficult such a thing is for an armorer, but it does seem trivial. Your brother, though, is referring to eliminating both the full-auto and the burst-fire capabilities.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I know it's not unusual for police to carry single shot MP5s in the US - the MP5SF was originally designed in response to an FBI request for a "9mm single fire carbine".

IIRC - and it's a big "if" - the requirement for a 9mm carbine was issued as part of several stop-gaps following the FBI's testing and dismissal of the 10mm pistol round. The 10mm's ballistics proved ideal, but the majority of FBI agents couldn't achieve proper accuracy due the 10mm's recoil. Several things were tried, culminating in the development and adoption of the .40 S&W (which is essentially just a down-loaded 10mm.)

GrahamKennedy wrote:In roles like patrolling airports there may also be an element of "high visibility deterrent".

This may be a part of the cultural differences which we previously discussed. In a culture in which firearms possess a degree of alienity - like yours - the sight of a SMG may prove to have quite an effect. The U.S., OTOH, is where the simple Tec-9 semi-auto pistol was modified by street punks - no gunsmiths - to become a full-auto SMG. In that environment, the mere sight of a SMG isn't going to have the same psychological effect.

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

Mikey wrote:OK, sorry to double-pump on this, but I was considering this further. I wasn't joking about calling a semi-auto SMG a "pistol." By definition, a SMG uses a pistol-caliber cartridge; the ONLY advantages that a SMG has over a pistol is a marginally longer barrel and automatic-fire capability. The difference in barrel length between a full-sized pistol and a SMG is small enough to not provide enough difference in muzzle velocity to prefer the larger weapon over the smaller for carry use; so the only practical advantage for police use would be the ability to fire in automatic mode.

As Graham said the MP5 has an effective range of 200m. That's far more than any pistol, partially due to the much greater barrel length but also due to superior ergonomics - the addition of a stock and foregrip makes it inherently far more stable. In the UK, if you need automatic weapons to gain fire superiority then you've gone way off the top end of any situation the police would be expected to handle and into "phone Hereford" territory.

Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Well, I don't know Hereford except as the birthplace of the eponymous breed of cattle. Modern MP5 variants have, according to HK, barrel lengths of slightly under 9 inches - approximately 3 to 4 inches greater than a typical full-sized pistol, or 4 to 5 inches greater than a typical "compact" or "carry" pistol. It doesn't seem to me that this difference is enough to impact the ballistics of a relatively low-capacity rimless pistol-caliber cartridge, especially one that headspaces on the case mouth; however, I must admit that while 8.85 inches is a far cry from an assault rifle or battle rifle, I don't know enough about internal ballistics to say that it is inconsequential. If that increase in range is accurate, I must still say that I don't think it's at all necessary in most police applications. If, however, it works for police in the UKoGBaNI, then perhaps it justifies the 500% increase in cost and the inconvenience in carry.

Is it common for the small segment of Brit police that are armed to carry a BUG?

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

Mikey wrote:Well, I don't know Hereford except as the birthplace of the eponymous breed of cattle.

It's also, as Granite mentioned, the HQ of 22 SAS.

Modern MP5 variants have, according to HK, barrel lengths of slightly under 9 inches - approximately 3 to 4 inches greater than a typical full-sized pistol, or 4 to 5 inches greater than a typical "compact" or "carry" pistol. It doesn't seem to me that this difference is enough to impact the ballistics of a relatively low-capacity rimless pistol-caliber cartridge, especially one that headspaces on the case mouth; however, I must admit that while 8.85 inches is a far cry from an assault rifle or battle rifle, I don't know enough about internal ballistics to say that it is inconsequential. If that increase in range is accurate, I must still say that I don't think it's at all necessary in most police applications. If, however, it works for police in the UKoGBaNI, then perhaps it justifies the 500% increase in cost and the inconvenience in carry.

It's not a matter of ballistics, although having a barrel twice as long will obviously help. The main difference, as I pointed out, is that an SMG is ergonomically far superior to a pistol.

Is it common for the small segment of Brit police that are armed to carry a BUG?

A what?

Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Again, one of those cultural differences. I'd consider any sort of internal law enforcement issue that required the services of the SAS to be a failing of the "standard" law-enforcement mechanism; you guys, apparently, consider it to be a natural progression of things. Again, neither can be said to be right or wrong, rather just a cultural difference.

Captain Seafort wrote:It's not a matter of ballistics, although having a barrel twice as long will obviously help.

Well, making such a big deal about the difference in effective range sort of does make it a matter of ballistics. My contention was merely that a range advantage of 200m over 50 or 70m is probably not as much of an advantage as it seems when it comes to police usage.

Captain Seafort wrote:The main difference, as I pointed out, is that an SMG is ergonomically far superior to a pistol.

To that, I'd say that this is a matter as much of training and usage as it is of any objective advantage. Someone involved in CAS, for example, would be a lot more accurate with a older-style single action revolver than with a M1911, even though the objective conventional wisdom says that the grip angle of the .45 is more ergonomically friendly. Likewise, pistols are inherently more accurate than revolvers; but a shooter who has spent his whole life sighting through a u-notch and pulling the heavy trigger of a DA revolver will shoot more accurately with a revolver than with a pistol.

Captain Seafort wrote:A what?

A back-up gun. Many officers over here will carry one for various reasons: if the main sidearm needs to be shelved for purposes of concealment, for example; or for the fact that drawing a handgun is generally quicker than dropping and swapping a mag, especially if the mag release on the departmental sidearm isn't ambidextrous or is otherwise unsuited for fast use by the shooter; or if there is a jam or misfire (most police sidearms are pistols) and there isn't time for a TRB; etc., etc.

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

Mikey wrote:Again, one of those cultural differences. I'd consider any sort of internal law enforcement issue that required the services of the SAS to be a failing of the "standard" law-enforcement mechanism; you guys, apparently, consider it to be a natural progression of things. Again, neither can be said to be right or wrong, rather just a cultural difference.

It's also a difference of where the cut-off is. You wouldn't consider it a failure of law enforcement if a bog-standard plod patrolling his beat couldn't assault a fortified building. The difference is that you have a halfway house between police and military - SWAT. For us to do that would be a waste of money as they wouldn't get used enough, so CRW Wing gets called in to do the job.

Well, making such a big deal about the difference in effective range sort of does make it a matter of ballistics. My contention was merely that a range advantage of 200m over 50 or 70m is probably not as much of an advantage as it seems when it comes to police usage.

More like 30-50 metres. Pistols simply aren't that accurate, because they're only stabilised at one point.

To that, I'd say that this is a matter as much of training and usage as it is of any objective advantage. Someone involved in CAS, for example, would be a lot more accurate with a older-style single action revolver than with a M1911, even though the objective conventional wisdom says that the grip angle of the .45 is more ergonomically friendly. Likewise, pistols are inherently more accurate than revolvers; but a shooter who has spent his whole life sighting through a u-notch and pulling the heavy trigger of a DA revolver will shoot more accurately with a revolver than with a pistol.

True. This doesn't change the fact that a weapon stabilised at three points will be far more accurate than a weapon stabilised at one point.

A back-up gun. Many officers over here will carry one for various reasons: if the main sidearm needs to be shelved for purposes of concealment, for example; or for the fact that drawing a handgun is generally quicker than dropping and swapping a mag, especially if the mag release on the departmental sidearm isn't ambidextrous or is otherwise unsuited for fast use by the shooter; or if there is a jam or misfire (most police sidearms are pistols) and there isn't time for a TRB; etc., etc.

Again, if armed police are deployed in the UK, they're not there to get into extended firefights - they're there to end the problem fast. If that means the crook giving up, so much the better, if not then tough. Concealing their weapons or getting through a full mag aren't issues that are relevant to their SOP, and they're deployed in large numbers, so an individual having a stoppage wouldn't be an issue.

Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Captain Seafort wrote:More like 30-50 metres. Pistols simply aren't that accurate, because they're only stabilised at one point.

Captain Seafort wrote:True. This doesn't change the fact that a weapon stabilised at three points will be far more accurate than a weapon stabilised at one point.

I believe you're operating under a misapprehension as to why a longer weapon is more accurate than a shorter one. First, there are no "three points" in this instance, because even the MP5 variants with a folding stock have a barely useable one, and certainly an insubstantial one. Second, a proper stance mitigates a lot of body sway, and whatever variance comes from the weight of the trigger pull will occur whether you're holding onto a fore-end or not. Rather, the difference in accuracy stems from the difference in the sight radius; the SMG certainly wins in this regard, but there is a trade off - the pistol (or other handgun) has a shorter sight radius but is quicker to acquire a sight picture. However, the disadvantages either way are almost completely mitigate by proper training.

Captain Seafort wrote:Again, if armed police are deployed in the UK, they're not there to get into extended firefights - they're there to end the problem fast. If that means the crook giving up, so much the better, if not then tough. Concealing their weapons or getting through a full mag aren't issues that are relevant to their SOP, and they're deployed in large numbers, so an individual having a stoppage wouldn't be an issue.

Fair enough, and again it comes to a difference in cultural philosophy (although I might have to watch an episode of "Luther" and see if he carries. ) I would take exception to your last statement though - by your own description, if the types of cops with firearms are on scene, then things have gotten to the "pretty f$%#ing bad" situation. In that case, it doesn't matter how many buddies you've got on the scene - a stoppage means one less chance you've got to get the bear before the bear gets you.

Actually, that reminds of another point - you can TRB-drill a pistol, if you're feeling lucky and have a striker-fired pistol you can even double-strike a misfire.

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

Mikey wrote:First, there are no "three points" in this instance, because even the MP5 variants with a folding stock have a barely useable one, and certainly an insubstantial one.

No, they've got a proper one:

Technically they're carbines. From the article that image is from the Grauniad got an earful from the Met calling them SMGs.

I would take exception to your last statement though - by your own description, if the types of cops with firearms are on scene, then things have gotten to the "pretty f$%#ing bad" situation. In that case, it doesn't matter how many buddies you've got on the scene - a stoppage means one less chance you've got to get the bear before the bear gets you.

"Pretty f$%#ing bad" means the crook is probably armed (possibly with a firearm, usually with a blade of some description), not that he's brassing up the whole street. In such a situation, if he does something stupid enough to get himself shot whether he gets hit by eight rounds or six or seven won't make much difference. I will, however, amend the statement to "less of an issue", as I was thinking in terms of the difference between an ARU and a single plod on normal patrol.

Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Technically they're carbines. From the article that image is from the Grauniad got an earful from the Met calling them SMGs.

Fair enough, but I will still maintain that - given the proper training for the shooter in either case - the main difference in accuracy from one to the other is sight radius. BTW, a SMG that's had its teeth pulled is still a SMG, and the papers aren't wrong for calling a spade a spade.

Captain Seafort wrote:"Pretty f$%#ing bad" means the crook is probably armed (possibly with a firearm, usually with a blade of some description), not that he's brassing up the whole street. In such a situation, if he does something stupid enough to get himself shot whether he gets hit by eight rounds or six or seven won't make much difference. I will, however, amend the statement to "less of an issue", as I was thinking in terms of the difference between an ARU and a single plod on normal patrol.

Doesn't matter if the BG is covering the ground with spent brass, or threatening to throw pub darts at a cop's eyes. No stoppage > any stoppage. If that malfunction is the 6th round downrange, who knows if the first five left a great enough wound channel in the right location? Sure, those five rounds will probably end up killing the BG, but immediately? Who knows? The goal of police fire isn't to kill a BG, it's to stop one. Granted, we're almost to the point of slitting hairs here, and this is a secondary if not tertiary concern; but the fact remains that you can TRB a pistol but have to work the bolt and hit up the charger on a SMG.

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

A point of note since I've clearly been away to long to really dive back into this topic. Police forces in the US (other then a small few SWAT units) do not use fully automatic SMGs. The options on the weapons are set to safety, single shot, triple shot and triple shot soft trigger (for those who want it). The reason being that fully auto can inspire the spray and pray issue and that is a bad thing. The reverse is that you can make a weapon fire just as fast as fully auto by pulling the trigger really fast.